Any self-claims regarding openpolitics.ca itselfmustlink to this page. This is not the only page where participants can or should discuss what this web service is becoming or should be, but it is the place to summarize any and all such claims made in context on all other pages.

This discussion is distributed across all pages that link to this page, which link toopenpolitics.ca itself every time they make a normative? or prescriptive? or controversial claim. By reviewing those pages and editing them directly, you help to define the concepts of open politics itself, not just the role of this web service. Everyone should be comfortable both making and also refuting such claims, on the appropriate page where they are made. Which is not always this page.

vision

The following is the summary of the vision debate for openpolitics.ca itself, ideally drawing on all the pages linked to this page? to synthesize two or more positions on what that vision must be:

Standing vision of openpolitics.ca

The standing vision, which is presented mostly for debate, and which you may edit, is fairly simple:

bioregional borders

accurately reflect real world community? borders and boundaries within and also across such borders

This is not necessarily implied by the idea of a virtual community? which resembles a gang? or roving nomad?ic band or sect? than it does a responsible democratic management of natural capital such as a nation-state? should or must be.

inevitability of rhetoric

Some claim that the vision requires that politics.ca be "not for debate or rhetoric" but only to reflect issues in non-metaphorical terms. This is very similar to the extreme position taken by Thomas Hobbes? who considered metaphors to be an abuse of the rational mind.

application of community standards

A related claim is that "community standards" must somehow apply to an epistemic community? that may agree on little or nothing in real life, while encouraging people to "shift from being a critic toward being a leader." There is an obvious question of how many leaders can be tolerated, and how factions form and identify their leader and indeed whether a "community" exists at all in an online forum.

ownership of domain name?s and contracts with web hosts, wiki host?s, wiki software expert?s, web design?ers and systems administrator?s should not authorize arbitrary persons to control openpolitics.ca itself without some democratic process though presently it does - as of 2006-01, the OP steering committee hasn't met for many months.

cash contribution of donor?s to the Open Politics Foundation should not make anyone an "insider?" in preference to contributors of other critical resources, though for a while this was claimed on the OP:insider page, inviting very serious systemic bias; longstanding regular editors who have contributed critical resources are as of 2006-01 not uniformly recognized as insiders - process of recognition is not transparent?

control of fundraising and design? is at present an opaque process? seemingly immune to any and all suggestions or proposals to change either for the better - subject to silent failure and backpedalling - thus there are various areas simply not open to debate at all, or subject to arbitrary criteria?, silent failure, ad hominem exclusion, and so on.